Cases

MOORE, Circuit Judge. Vizio, Inc. appeals from the district court’s denial of attorneys’ and expert witness fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and the court’s inherent power. We hold that the district court abused its discretion in denying fees, and thus vacate and remand. Background

ORDER Upon consideration of the parties’ joint motion to withdraw these appeals, It Is Ordered That: (1) The motion is granted. The appeals are dismissed. (2) Each side shall bear its own costs. (3) All pending motions are moot.

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER JOHN G. HEYBURN II, Chairman. Before the Panel: Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, patentholder Oplus Technologies, Ltd. (Oplus) seeks centralization in the Northern District of Illinois of six actions involving the alleged infringement of two patents concerning methods of video signal error correction and deinterlacing technologies.1 This litigation currently

Case: 21-1858 Document: 85 Page: 1 Filed: 11/03/2023 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ IN RE: PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES LLC, ------------------------------------------------- AMAZON.COM, INC., AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellees v. PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES LLC, Defendant-Appellant

TARANTO, Circuit Judge. Robert Mankes owns U.S. Patent No. 6,477,503, which describes and claims methods for managing a reservation system that divides inventory between a local server and a remote Internet server. In October 2013, Mr. Mankes sued Vivid Seats Ltd. and Fandango, LLC in the Eastern District of North Carolina, alleging that their operation of Internet-based reserva

OPINION & ORDER DENISE COTE, District Judge: For eighteen months, AlphaCap Ventures LLC (“AlphaCap”) pursued this patent infringement litigation against Gust, Inc. (“Gust”), first in the Eastern District of Texas, and then in the Southern District of New York following the transfer of the Texas action. As AlphaCap recognized, its patent claims were “not worth pursuing” in light of the Supreme Court’s

MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 JAMES O. BROWNING, District Judge. ' THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Plaintiffs Motion for Finding Exceptional Case Under 85 U.S.C. § 285 and Award of Attorneys’ Fees, filed June 22, 2012 (Doc. 202)(“Motion”). The Court held a hearing on March 6, 2013. The primary issue is whether Defendant Levi-tón Manufácturing Co. should

STOLL, Circuit Judge. Bayer appeals the district court’s award of attorney fees to Dow under 35 U.S.C. § 285. The district court awarded attorney fees to Dow upon finding that the case stood out from others and was thus exceptional. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the case exceptional and awarding fees, we affirm. Backg